Why New Jersey is #2 in solar power (and why this isn’t good)

New Jersey has more solar power installed than Nevada and Colorado—combined. …

Two weeks ago, I returned to the town in New Jersey where I had grown up in order to film a news segment. On a whim, I drove past my parents' old house and saw, amidst a collection of other changes, one that I'd half expected: perched on the utility pole across the street was a solar panel. Even though none of the houses on the block appeared to have any hardware installed, the neighborhood had joined the distributed renewable power revolution.

At least in the northern part of the state, it's hard to go anywhere without seeing these individual panels scattered about on various poles that carry current. Individually, each appears to be less than a meter square, but they represent an impressive feat: the installation went from an announcement to wealthy neighborhood eyesore in two years. More impressive, however, are the sorts of numbers these efforts have driven. New Jersey is second in the nation in terms of installed solar capacity. In 2009, it had more installed capacity than the third and fourth states (Colorado and Nevada) combined.

In this perspective, we'll take a look at some of the factors that have pushed New Jersey to become a leader in renewable energy, how the state government responded to them, and why that highlights the problems that result from our failure to develop a national energy policy.

Why renewables (especially solar) are a good fit for New Jersey

There isn't really a single factor that has driven the surge in solar in the Garden State; instead, there is a large confluence of them. Some of them are historical and cultural. It's the most densely populated state, a position it achieved through decades of unconstrained development. That has resulted in a real effort to preserve the state's remaining open spaces, which limits the prospect of things like utility-scale solar installations. The state also experienced a period of heavy industrialization in the absence of environmental regulations, and has responded by tightening said regulations significantly. Its position as a leader in environmental regulation is highlighted by the fact that the former head of its Department of Environmental Protection, Lisa Jackson, has been bumped up to head the EPA.

In general, the past experience with unconstrained growth has left the state's residents unlikely to join the charge to strip the government of regulatory power. Its voters also have a slight tendency to vote for Democrats, and even its Republicans tend to be the sorts of moderates that are difficult to find on the national stage. As a whole, these trends tend to mean that New Jersey will accept what the scientific community is telling it about climate change, and will act accordingly.

The state's energy economy also makes renewable power an easier sell economically. New Jersey is an anomaly in many ways, getting about half of its power from nuclear plants and importing a substantial fraction (about 30 percent) from out of state. The bulk of its expanding electricity needs have been met by coal and natural gas, even though those bump up against the state's strict environmental laws and have to fight for the limited land in play. All of those factors keep New Jersey's electricity prices in line with those of surrounding states, which remain the highest in the nation outside of Hawaii. Renewables don't have to come down as far in price to become competitive.

With the political and economic pieces in place, New Jersey has acted; the state has a renewable energy standard that dictates that, by 2020, it will receive 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources. So far, progress on the intermediate goals has generally been good.

Greening the Garden State

Deciding to go renewable doesn't help you pick a technology. In the case of New Jersey, however, there aren't a lot of choices. The state's general flat topography means that hydropower isn't much of an option; the last attempt to build a major dam within the state died in the 1970s, as public opposition helped turn the land that would have been flooded into a National Recreation Area. Many of the estuaries and rivers that do flow into the ocean in New Jersey have excellent potential as sources of tidal power, but that technology hasn't yet advanced far enough to allow deployment. A similar thing applies to wind. The state has some excellent potential wind resources, but they're all offshore, and the US has only gotten to the point of approving large offshore wind projects since President Obama took office.

Given the state of current technology, New Jersey was going to go solar if it was going to do anything at all. And, in a state where open land is precious and often preserved, it wasn't going to build much in the way of utility-scale projects. Its aggressive renewable targets would have to be met largely through distributed solar.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. As a densely populated state, there are lots of roofs available to host photovoltaic panels. A healthy assortment of shopping malls, shipping warehouses, and other facilities would also help. But the usual mixture of rebates, tax credits, and price incentives that have been applied in many states generally haven't driven adoption at the rates New Jersey needed.

So, the state devised a system based on what are called Solar Renewable Energy Certificates, or SRECs and focused its efforts on these. Those operating solar panels can do whatever they want with the power, either using it at home or selling it back to a utility. No matter what's done, as long as the equipment produces 1,000 kWh, it also generates SRECs, which can be bundled and sold on a market. The primary purchasers on the market are utilities, which use them to meet their annual quota of renewable power; falling short will net them a fee. This happened in 2009, when an insufficient number of SRECs were generated; the money went directly into programs that promote additional installations. To prevent excessive speculation, the maximum price for an SREC is capped; they have generally traded for well below this cap.

All of this has created a vibrant solar market in the garden state. Intermediaries can bundle the SRECs generated by groups of homes and sell them on to utilities. Companies with large facilities can put solar installations on the roof and become an SREC vendor. In the case of the sort of solar hardware that has appeared outside my childhood home, a utility has cut out the middle-men and put panels on its own hardware (which, conveniently, has easy grid access). Things might get tougher as the requirements ramp up over the decade, but there are still a lot of empty roofs in the state.

Local success, national failure

It's difficult not to admire New Jersey as an unexpected success story, a tiny upstart passing giant states with far better solar resources at their disposal. But, from a national perspective, its success doesn't make much sense. Right now, in addition to cost, the biggest barrier to solar installations is our manufacturing capacity. At our current rates, we simply can't build and install panels fast enough to meet all of the goals we've set for decades down the line; most plans assume a significant increase in manufacturing capacity. While the supply is constrained, it would seem to make sense to put what we can make where we'll get the most bang for our buck. And that's states like Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada—precisely those states that New Jersey has shot past.

There are plenty of reasons this is the case. These states currently pay far less for energy than New Jersey does, which makes renewables a tougher sell. A large part of that, however, could probably be offset by an installation's increased productivity there. The biggest problem is that these states lack the sort of political and cultural perspective that makes renewable an easy sell in New Jersey.

This brings us to the larger issue: our transition to an increased reliance is a national problem, but we only solve one aspect of it (technology research) on the national level. Beyond that, issues like grid reliability, long distance transmission, storage for intermittent sources, etc. are left to a patchwork of the federal government, states, utilities, and grids. And, as a result, we simply don't make good use of our limited resources.

The real problem is that at a federal level, the US has no will to implement a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme (and it's not just the Teabag Party ranting this time). Until the price of CO2 accurately reflects the real costs to society of producing it, renewables are going to be stuck there while other countries blaze past.

I'd love to add solar panels to my house here in Oregon. The quote I got was $66,000.00 Even with rebates and incentives the system would pay for itself (maybe) in 25 years. Right now solar is a rich man's option.

There are other options such as fuel cell technology that I'm hoping will someday free us from the grid.

I'd love to add solar panels to my house here in Oregon. The quote I got was $66,000.00 Even with rebates and incentives the system would pay for itself (maybe) in 25 years. Right now solar is a rich man's option.

There are other options such as fuel cell technology that I'm hoping will someday free us from the grid.

That's why money is always better spent on insulation. (numbers being pulled from my ars) Put $5,000 into insulation/sealing and it'll pay for itself in several years and save more energy than solar panels ever will.

In the real world, it is a waste to aim for some perfect optimal results. If New Jersey has developed some experience with the use of solar energy and has some positive results, that is a good contribution to some forward progress. At the other end of the spectrum, I wonder if New Jersey ever got all of its hazardous waste problem sites cleaned up.

Shelling out big bucks for a national renewable energy strategy and the associated infrastructure required to support it would have been a good idea a couple years back when the federal government was shoveling trillions of dollars out the door to stimulate the economy.

But instead of spending that stimulus money on massive capital investments that pay long-term dividends, they spent it consumptively, repaving roads a couple years ahead of schedule and encouraging people to buy new cars sooner than necessary. What a wasted opportunity.

On-grid solar PV is an in-efficient boondoggle and almost any other form of power production is a better option. New Jersey would have been better building Wind Turbines or Nuclear power plants. There is absolutely no way those panels will make any significant contribution to electricity production. This is just a way to throw rate payers money at a problem as a form of propaganda.

Like Germany, NJ has the will, and independent thinking to take on traditional power sources. Nuclear is bad news for the planet. Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Italy have sworn off nuclear waste machinery. Its just too damn deadly in the long-term. Short term, okay, we can keep stock piling spent fuel *on top of* reactors, like they did in Fukushima, and when they explode, hope the winds sent it over seas, with the first stop being 5,000 miles away. Even then, the west coast had warnings from the EPA, and other organizations.

Solar is the way to go. Production is indeed ramping up and new technologies are improving efficiencies, reducing panel weight and sizes, so within 5 years, we can indeed have a US economy not so dependent on non-renewables like nuclear and fossil oil and gas.

Things look bright when you move with conviction toward a healthy goal.

On-grid solar PV is an in-efficient boondoggle and almost any other form of power production is a better option. New Jersey would have been better building Wind Turbines or Nuclear power plants. There is absolutely no way those panels will make any significant contribution to electricity production. This is just a way to throw rate payers money at a problem as a form of propaganda.

While germany generates comparable much electricity via solar, especially for its climate, it's only small share of the renewable energy generated. 2009 ten times as much energy was generated by wind and hydro combined than by solar. (solar about 6.6%, wind about 40%, hydro 20%)

On-grid solar PV is an in-efficient boondoggle and almost any other form of power production is a better option. New Jersey would have been better building Wind Turbines or Nuclear power plants. There is absolutely no way those panels will make any significant contribution to electricity production. This is just a way to throw rate payers money at a problem as a form of propaganda.

How do you explain (away) the success of solar power in Germany?

There hasn't been any success of solar power in Germany. The Germans have paid an enormous amount of money to produce very little power. It's been a horrendous boondoggle for the German taxpayer.

Quote:

A 2009 study from RWI Essen of the effects of the Renewable Energy Sources Act concluded that: using photovoltaics in emission reduction is 53 times more expensive than the European Union Emission Trading Scheme's market price, while wind power is 4 times more expensive, thereby discouraging other industries from finding more cost-effective methods of reducing emissions; despite lavish subsidies, Germany's photovoltaic industry is losing its market share to other countries, particularly China and Japan;

The Germans would have been far better to have invested the money they spent on PV panels on Wind Turbines. The numbers aren't even close. Currently, Solar accounts for 6.6% of German renewable power production vs 40.4% for Wind Power.

On-grid solar PV is an in-efficient boondoggle and almost any other form of power production is a better option. New Jersey would have been better building Wind Turbines or Nuclear power plants. There is absolutely no way those panels will make any significant contribution to electricity production. This is just a way to throw rate payers money at a problem as a form of propaganda.

On-grid solar PV is an in-efficient boondoggle and almost any other form of power production is a better option. New Jersey would have been better building Wind Turbines or Nuclear power plants. There is absolutely no way those panels will make any significant contribution to electricity production. This is just a way to throw rate payers money at a problem as a form of propaganda.

How is it a boondoggle? As long as more energy can be produced than went into the production, installation and maintenance for the panels it is a win. And given that solar panels can have long life spans, it's not a problem (hell, they can be left in place as long as they are producing power, just add more efficient panels next to them).

As noted in the article nuclear isn't an option in the most densely populated state in the union- find enough open space to open a plant (not gonna happen) plus after the Japan catastrophe it's just not going to fly politically. And political costs are a definite cost. Solar has no real downside, it adds extra supply when it is most needed (on long sunny summer days, during the daytime), has no byproducts, and can be installed on millions of roofs to get to utility scale on a collective basis. And it's local-so installation and maintenance provides jobs in the area, rather than pulling from out of state.

The people who argue against solar just don't get that feasibility is as important as efficiency. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be done (just like something being impossible doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a laudable goal). Off shore wind turbines will happen, but it will take some time, and they have a ton of shipping lanes to work around. But solar can be done now.

One of the reasons Arizona gets such cheap energy is because we have a nuclear power plant not too far from us. Super clean, super efficient. If we just build a few more to replace coal plants around the country, pollution would go way down. No need for expensive solar power.

One panel, over the course of one full year, generates enough power for four 60 watt bulbs for six weeks, OR one 60 watt bulbs for ALMOST half a year... (one can assume that means they generate about 30 watts/hour) That's not a lot of energy per panel, and it takes a crew of men to install them (typically two cherry picker trucks, a couple flag men, and at least one overt-time collecting policeman, sitting in a idling car overseeing the traffic situation.

Gov. Christie is working on adjusting the program to focus more on Natural Gas power plants - from the New York Times:

<blockquote>"Public hearings will be held on the plan before it becomes final. The revision sets the amount of electricity to be obtained from renewable sources like solar or wind power at 22.5 percent by 2021, down from 30 percent. It also puts more emphasis on electricity powered by natural gas; the state is already seeking to build three new gas plants."</blockquote>

I'd love to add solar panels to my house here in Oregon. The quote I got was $66,000.00

What size system is that supposed to cover?!? Does your house use a lot of electricity?

(Understandably the climate in parts of Oregon is not ideal for solar collection, but still...)

Probably not. Rooftop solar photovoltaic electricity generation does not make any sense whatsoever in any place where electricity costs less than $.40 - $.50 per KWHr. The national (USA) average cost of electricity at the residential consumer's door is about $.11 per KWHr to provide some perspective.

These states currently pay far less for energy than New Jersey does, which makes renewables a tougher sell. A large part of that, however, could probably be offset by an installation's increased productivity there. The biggest problem is that these states lack the sort of political and cultural perspective that makes renewable an easy sell in New Jersey.

The reason solar is unattractive in those other states is because it's a costly idea which never, ever, ever pays for itself if you do a realistic cost of money analysis.

A typical household installation has a nominal capacity of 3000 watts. Now you might think you'd get 3K X 24 hours X 30 days = 2160 KWHr per month from such an installation. A little thought would show that it's dark at least half of day and you might revise your estimate to 1000 KWHr per month. Then you'd realize there's morning and evening and sun angles and you might take that down a little further to 800KWHr per month.

The reality, even in sunny locations, like central Texas (where I live) is considerably less than 400 KWHr per month from a 3000 watt nominal capacity system.

At the national average of (let's be generous) $.12/KWHr, that will gross a household a whopping $48 per month in electricity if it is lucky.

What does a 3000 watt installation cost? $12,000 - $27,000, according to the City of Austin, which is pushing this stuff. However, a year ago the low end was $18,000 not $12,000 and my research has shown that the $27,000 number is a much more likely cost.

Austin's website outright lies about the numbers. Look at the "electric bill savings" range, and the "Cost" boxes. Even taking their lowest stated cost of $4000 (per 1000 watt capacity) and their highest monthly savings of $155, how do you get a payback period of 5 years as they state? Or even 20 years? I see a payback time of 25 years. Even taking the rebates into account (which ignores the real cost to society) the payback time never gets that short.

But even assuming $12,000, how long does it take to pay off a $12,000 loan at less than $50 per month? The answer is that the interest on a $12,000 loan is more than $50 per month. Never mind the interest on a $27,000 loan. And most locations in the USA would generate considerably less than $50 worth of electricity. In fact, under $40 per month.

Consider the cost of maintenance. If nothing else, these things must be cleaned off regularly, which means the home owner is taking up power generation as a hobby. Even if rooftop accidents are extremely rare, how many broken legs at $15,000+ a pop does it take to make the whole concept uneconomical? If one likes to include externalities in power generation costs, then the cost of maintenance for distributed systems pushed off onto the consumer must be considered along with the increased risk.

Finally, consider the argument that these things somehow reduce pollution or CO2 emissions. The only reason they have become more affordable in recent years is that they are being manufactured in China with cheap electricity generated by burning dirty coal. This is just a fancy and overpriced method of exporting a large amount of pollution to another country.

Finally, what would the economics of solar panels look like if all of the manufacturing was done with electricity which costs $.40 - $.50 per KWHr? That's the true test of so-called sustainability. If the panels were manufactured with expensive electricity generated from other panels, would anyone ever be able to afford them?

Roof top solar photovoltaic is a terrible idea whose time has not come. Anyone who has the wherewithal to look a few relevant facts up and do simple arithmetic should be able to see that.

On-grid solar PV is an in-efficient boondoggle and almost any other form of power production is a better option. New Jersey would have been better building Wind Turbines or Nuclear power plants. There is absolutely no way those panels will make any significant contribution to electricity production. This is just a way to throw rate payers money at a problem as a form of propaganda.

How is it a boondoggle? As long as more energy can be produced than went into the production, installation and maintenance for the panels it is a win. And given that solar panels can have long life spans, it's not a problem (hell, they can be left in place as long as they are producing power, just add more efficient panels next to them).

Each panel dribbles power onto the local grid - there is no accounting for what they contribute.

Quote:

As noted in the article nuclear isn't an option in the most densely populated state in the union- find enough open space to open a plant (not gonna happen) plus after the Japan catastrophe it's just not going to fly politically. And political costs are a definite cost. Solar has no real downside, it adds extra supply when it is most needed (on long sunny summer days, during the daytime), has no byproducts, and can be installed on millions of roofs to get to utility scale on a collective basis. And it's local-so installation and maintenance provides jobs in the area, rather than pulling from out of state.

Two words: Pine Barrens.

We already have a Nuke in NJ, BTW.

Quote:

The people who argue against solar just don't get that feasibility is as important as efficiency. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be done (just like something being impossible doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a laudable goal). Off shore wind turbines will happen, but it will take some time, and they have a ton of shipping lanes to work around. But solar can be done now.

On-grid solar PV is an in-efficient boondoggle and almost any other form of power production is a better option. New Jersey would have been better building Wind Turbines or Nuclear power plants. There is absolutely no way those panels will make any significant contribution to electricity production. This is just a way to throw rate payers money at a problem as a form of propaganda.

How is it a boondoggle? As long as more energy can be produced than went into the production, installation and maintenance for the panels it is a win. And given that solar panels can have long life spans, it's not a problem (hell, they can be left in place as long as they are producing power, just add more efficient panels next to them).

That shows very little understanding of basic economics. Just because it can technically have a net energy/economic gain over it's life time doesn't make it a good choice. And in the case of Solar PV it's a really bad choice.

Here is what the Department of Energy says the costs are in $/Megawatt Hour:Natural gas $66Coal $95Wind $97Nuclear $114Solar PV $211

So New Jersey could produce 217% more renewable power if they spent the money on Wind Turbines instead of Solar Cells. When you are picking a choice that is half as efficient as the other choice it's a boondoggle.

Granted wind is probably more expensive than that in New Jersey due to limited wind, but Solar PV is also more expensive due to limited sun light (solar isolation).

I think a lot of people are looking at only the short term effects of solar, and the empirical numbers. Energy independence changes our society at its very core, and it radically changes our foreign policy and of course the massive expenditures we make enforcing that foreign policy.These numbers dwarf the expensive of renewables. If you conveniently ignore that, then yes it may seem that on the surface, renewables aren't all that great, but you must take into account all the other changes that occur when we no longer become dependent on foreign sources of energy.

>This brings us to the larger issue: our transition to an increased reliance is a national problem, but we only solve one aspect of it (technology research) on the national level. Beyond that, issues like grid reliability, long distance transmission, storage for intermittent sources, etc. are left to a patchwork of the federal government, states, utilities, and grids. And, as a result, we simply don't make good use of our limited resources.

Yup. With a national power grid, we'd build the panels in places where it actually makes sense, not in New Jersey. And New Jersey would buy there power from there, rather than try and shoehorn renewables into low solar resource areas.

You already need shingles, these can be installed in exactly the same way, IE nailed by a roof contractor since they clip together. Only need an electrician after they're on the roof, and only one access hole to the grid.Plus they look very much like regular shingles and should be fine for the dreaded HOA.

You're still much better off getting better insulation, windows, and heaters, but once that's done and your roof needs replaced anyway, toss these up there to reduce your power bill by 25-50%, even in Michigan.

I imagine that the author of that Wiki article took the best case for wind and the worst case for nuclear. Many people seem to have an irrational emotional attachment to the idea of wind and solar generated electricity.

One panel, over the course of one full year, generates enough power for four 60 watt bulbs for six weeks, OR one 60 watt bulbs for ALMOST half a year... (one can assume that means they generate about 30 watts/hour) That's not a lot of energy per panel, and it takes a crew of men to install them (typically two cherry picker trucks, a couple flag men, and at least one overt-time collecting policeman, sitting in a idling car overseeing the traffic situation.

Gov. Christie is working on adjusting the program to focus more on Natural Gas power plants - from the New York Times:

<blockquote>"Public hearings will be held on the plan before it becomes final. The revision sets the amount of electricity to be obtained from renewable sources like solar or wind power at 22.5 percent by 2021, down from 30 percent. It also puts more emphasis on electricity powered by natural gas; the state is already seeking to build three new gas plants."</blockquote>

I think a lot of people are looking at only the short term effects of solar, and the empirical numbers. Energy independence changes our society at its very core, and it radically changes our foreign policy and of course the massive expenditures we make enforcing that foreign policy.These numbers dwarf the expensive of renewables. If you conveniently ignore that, then yes it may seem that on the surface, renewables aren't all that great, but you must take into account all the other changes that occur when we no longer become dependent on foreign sources of energy.

No, your point is completely irrelevant to this topic. The USA is energy independent for electricity generation.

Foreign energy dependence for the USA is about petroleum. We get less than 1% of our electricity from oil. Increasing electricity generation from other sources will not affect our energy dependence/independence, nor our foreign policy one iota, because it does not affect our oil consumption in any way.

Those were actually on the market for a little while and taken off again back around 2007 or a little earlier. Or an earlier incarnation of them. I wouldn't hold my breath for that implementation to actually become a reality. If they haven't solved the engineering problems in four years and more, I doubt that it is easily solvable.

I think a lot of people are looking at only the short term effects of solar, and the empirical numbers. Energy independence changes our society at its very core, and it radically changes our foreign policy and of course the massive expenditures we make enforcing that foreign policy.These numbers dwarf the expensive of renewables. If you conveniently ignore that, then yes it may seem that on the surface, renewables aren't all that great, but you must take into account all the other changes that occur when we no longer become dependent on foreign sources of energy.

No, your point is completely irrelevant to this topic. The USA is energy independent for electricity generation.

Foreign energy dependence for the USA is about petroleum. We get less than 1% of our electricity from oil. Increasing electricity generation from other sources will not affect our energy dependence/independence, nor our foreign policy one iota, because it does not affect our oil consumption in any way.

bahahahaha, Whoever told you that seems to have forgotten how much electrical power you buy from Canada, and the fact that if it were turned off tomorrow you wouldn't be able to fill that void for months / years.

bahahahaha, Whoever told you that seems to have forgotten how much electrical power you buy from Canada, and the fact that if it were turned off tomorrow you wouldn't be able to fill that void for months / years.

Uoooh. Caught me. And does this Canadian exception affect my point at all? Would reducing the electricity we buy from Canada somehow get our troops out of the MIddle East?

Those were actually on the market for a little while and taken off again back around 2007 or a little earlier. Or an earlier incarnation of them. I wouldn't hold my breath for that implementation to actually become a reality. If they haven't solved the engineering problems in four years and more, I doubt that it is easily solvable.

I don't know about an earlier incarnation, but considering Dow has already begun construction on the production plant:<a href="http://www.dow.com/news/corporate/2011/20110601a.htm">http://www.dow.com/news/corporate/2011/20110601a.htm</a>It's got a good chance of going forward.Other companies have (or currently do) offer "solar shingles" but failed in that they required a ton of holes drilled in your roof and a specialist to do all the installation.

Solar energy collection is great, when applied in the right area, and I question if NJ and Germany are the right places for solar, if only for climate reasons. If I were to invest in solar, I'd want them in places that saw as many clear days as possible, just like I'd want wind in the great plains. It seems like everyone is in a rush to look good, without planning enough first.

bahahahaha, Whoever told you that seems to have forgotten how much electrical power you buy from Canada, and the fact that if it were turned off tomorrow you wouldn't be able to fill that void for months / years.

The US imports very little power from Canada. In 2009 we imported 51 terawatthours and exported 17 terawatthours for a net total of 34 terawatt Hours.

I work for an electric utility in NJ, and would like to share a few thoughts on this. First of all, everyone seems to be focusing on the cost of generating the power. Yeah, there's a large initial investment, then hey, free power. Sounds great, right? The problem is that the generation may be free (no fuel or anything), but the distribution certainly isn't.

The electric grid is (usually) designed so that energy flows from a high voltage transmission line to a substation, where it's stepped down to a lower voltage that is supplied to customers (after being stepped down again by a distribution transformer). Your house is on a specific circuit; there's one path power flows from the substation to your house. For the setup to be changed, i.e. power to come from a different place, there's engineers involved who make sure that all the equipment involved can handle the change. There's a lot of factors that may be involved (voltage drop, ampacity of the lines, etc.). Also, if you have a lineman working on the line, safety precautions can be taken. Equipment can be set to be more sensitive to possible faults and not to reclose (what happens when your lights blink), but to lock out instead. A switch can be opened to completely de-energize the line so it's safe to touch.

Now everyone wants distributed generation. It sounds cool, I know. But now you're throwing a massive wrench into everything I just mentioned. You might be supplying more power back into the grid than the line outside your house can handle. If it's a hot summer day, yeah there's plenty of power being generated by solar. But there's also a lot of load, which often needs to be switched around so that nothing is overloaded. It can get hectic, and if the utility is switching load around that it can't see on its monitoring equipment because it's being generated from solar installations, there can be problems. Solar could be powering a line that's supposed to be de-energized and therefore safe for a lineman to work on. (I know most solar installations are supposed to stop sending power into the grid if the line goes dead, but it's still a safety issue that the utility doesn't control.)

Then there's the cloud issue. Distribution equipment isn't designed to handle that kind of fluctuation. You can see instant voltage drops from clouds overhead or spikes from when they pass that voltage regulators on the lines can't handle, for example.

I'm not saying solar is a bad thing or that these problems can't be engineered around. They can. It's just that the reality of it is a lot more complicated than most people seem to realize. I've looked at our budget, and there's quite a lot of money being spent on upgrades so that we can handle distributed solar power generation. Guess who that cost gets passed onto? The rate-payers. How's that for free power?

I've talked with a few people in NJ (mostly electrical engineers) who have put in solar panels on their single family homes. They all seem pretty happy with it. Financing wasn't a problem and they get a check instead of sending one out. In fact, the earlier adopters were better off due to more government incentives and also because SRECs are dropping in price as more capacity comes online.

I don't remember the magic number for having a positive ROI (stated in dollars per kW). I also got the impression that deploying solar panels was a more viable option than building more peak capacity, since the sunniest days tend to correspond with the peak loads (air conditioning).

One thing this got me thinking about is air-conditioning. When it gets hot outside, a/c goes on and the demand on the grid increases. Assuming that it is only hot when the sun is out (in reality humidity is an important factor), what size of solar panel would you need to make the a/c system autonomous, i.e. not using any power from the grid?

One thing I would like to see are houses that are better designed for their geography, to reduce the need of active systems that compensate poor housing design. If you look around the world and back in time, you will see solutions already exist, but the attitude of throwing active systems at everything and using a standard building design, means some of these have been forgotten or at least ignored.

One thing this got me thinking about is air-conditioning. When it gets hot outside, a/c goes on and the demand on the grid increases. Assuming that it is only hot when the sun is out (in reality humidity is an important factor), what size of solar panel would you need to make the a/c system autonomous, i.e. not using any power from the grid?

One thing I would like to see are houses that are better designed for their geography, to reduce the need of active systems that compensate poor housing design. If you look around the world and back in time, you will see solutions already exist, but the attitude of throwing active systems at everything and using a standard building design, means some of these have been forgotten or at least ignored.

These are things I've been thinking about too. Photovoltaics are expensive, so I've always liked the idea of a small scale 5-tonnish solar thermal absorption chiller designed for single family residences instead. Concentrated solar thermal would likely be much cheaper than the solar panels needed to drive the compressor and fan in a typical vapor phase cooling system. Then you add some small PV capacity to drive the remaining fan and electronics and, at least during the day, you don't have to spend anything to cool your house.

More efficient building design is also a great idea. Older houses built before airconditioning had breezeways and places designed specifically for occupants to reatreat to in semi-comfort for the hottest part of the day. Also earth berm and other types of subterranian homes could really save some energy in some parts of the country, but most people are prejudiced against these types of homes.